[Closed] The language of politics

Reminds me 'New Labour, new danger'

Wish I'd listened back then.

But I agree, language is reaching all time low and has been spiralling for decades.

UK Politics has been moving towards a more presidential/personal style for decades (I really noticed it with Tony Blair). The downside for folk like May is this whole "was never elected as PM" thing, and see where that's got her. She herself keeps referring to Corbyn rather than the policies of the Labour Party.

I don't think it's a good thing but the genie appears to be out of the bottle.

I think we've sleepwalked into the American style of attack adds and big money donors buying the vote

All the campaign gurus, media companies etc hired for 6 figures arent good for politics

It's also a rubbish argument of vote against party X, rather than giving a good reason to vote for Your, but yet once in power all votes are taken to be votes for the party

Isn't it a sign of a healthy society that someone can stick up an infantile poster of a politician, like the one you saw, and no one's arsed? It may influence the dim of bulb, but so what?

I agree with your wider point thought that the language of politics is pretty dispiriting. Something like question time, for example, the flagship politics forum of the national broadcaster, is extremely mediocre. Should be aiming for a far higher standard.

I despair of the "vote for us, the other lot are terrible" approach to campaigning.

It's a struggle to vote for anyone on their own merits.

As above, people are being sold Corbyn or May but seem to forget that they're only voting for a local member.

Indeed. In Scotland the Tories are basically standing as the "no Indyref2" party, with no actual policies of their own being talked about.

That's a crap thing about our system. Local elections are ignored, national ones on local representative. Bit confusing

Reminds me 'New Labour, new danger'

Wish I'd listened back then.

Agreed - although in retrospect there was no way in a million years I would've voted Tory in 1997 (or any other year for that matter). It's just a shame I inadvertently voted for a bunch of Tories in red ties instead.

But I agree, language is reaching all time low and has been spiralling for decades.

I've noticed this trend in recent years too. There's definitely been political collusion with the press to turn campaigns around policies into cheap soundbites. How many voters in 2017 will have read both parties manifestos and will be making a choice based on policy?

Do you really think it has changed that much? My earliest memories of non issue politics were the constant attacks on Foot and the Kinnock, they were direct, nasty and had nothing to do with policy.

IMO The tory party have played this game far more than labour in my lifetime, and currently Corbyn is very much doing himself a disservice with the restraint he is showing.

Yep politics has been dumbed down mud-slinging for as long as I can remember.

Don't feel bad for T-May, 'cos she certainly doesn't give a **** about you.

There is news today of a billboard that has appeared in Cardiff depicting Theresa May alongside the words 'I AM A THREAT', and urging people not to vote Conservative.

Given that the Tories have consistently described Corbyn as a threat to national security, I suggest this is of their own making.

I completely agree.
I really couldn't believe it when Cameron posted this after the Corbyn was elected.
[img] [/img]

It may influence the dim of bulb, but so what?

So what?

Politics should be about public constructive debate. So we can arrive at the best way to solve our problems that the majority of people will agree with.

It should not be about who can sling the most mud. If our system descends (or has descended) into that, we're all screwed, because we will simply be swamped in mudslinging, meaningless soundbites and spin instead of thinking about policies and voting accordingly.

So it's a pretty big what, imo.

I wouldn't mind so much much if either side said something like, 'X's [i]policies[/i] represent a threat to national security'. The problem is when they say that a [i]person[/i] is a threat; or less bad, but still unhelpful, a [i]party[/i].

In Wales, Plaid Cymru has been clumsily trying to use the rhetoric of UKIP. A manifesto full of "under threat", "defend our nation", "tidal wave of attacks" type phrases.

Sticks and stones ... so begins one of the biggest fallacies in the history of humankind. Words can be weapons and we should use them very very carefully. They can do great harm to any person, life long harm in many cases. When we or our politicians, or the media use them to vilify another group of people words can cause huge damage and destruction to us all.

What did Labour say when you raised the issue with them OP?

I know it is everywhere, but I sort of feel bad for Mrs May when I see this, because I don't think she is a threat at all. I don't agree with many of her policies, but I still believe she is in politics because she wants to do what she believes to be right for Britain.

I am in two minds.

I disagree with the language on both sides whole-heartedly so would like to see the more mature elements rise above name-calling and slurring, [i]but[/i] the Tory's campaigns of past have been incredibly low.

The current, continual smearing of Corbyn and the front page ads on local papers stand out as recent low points, the smearing of Miliband's father was foul and the aforementioned 'New Labour, New Danger' (done by Saatchi and Saatchi, a fine group of people lead by a coke-head that would never throttle his wife) was disgusting, pure and simple. From that point of view I'm happy to see them dragged through the dirt.

I can't help feeling the same applies to the press though. Our mainstream news is predominantly right leaning, yet we have more parties that are centre to left-of-centre.

It's easier to attack than defend. That's how simple it is, if you know your on shaky ground you want as little attention as possible on your weaknesses.

As an aside it also depends on who you are selling to. From my point of view I don't give opinions on competitors products as I don't want to to be known for that. It's about the game you are playing, there is every chance the looser will leave the front benches or politics.

It's easier to attack than defend. That's how simple it is, if you know your on shaky ground you want as little attention as possible on your weaknesses.

You're the PM?

Having a shit time at home?

Start a war!

Everyone loves a good war.

Build national spirit and camaraderie, increase defence spending, avoid unpleasant issues at home and unite the parties.

War! What every failing government needs.*

*Not a guarantee of success, especially if the war is in somewhere hot and dusty or hot and jungily.

Unfortunately we can only blame ourselves. Historically it was perceived that people would vote for their hopes rather than their fears. Then we started using technology to collect a bit more data on that, and it turns out fears are a lot more powerful than imagined.

Therefore we get ads that play on peoples fears... personally I hate it. If I stood for office my first policy would be to not take part in emotional attacks - just contrasting policies. I'd lose of course on the strength of that alone as you miss off the demographic of people who don't 'do' evidence based thinking.

I sort of feel bad for Mrs May when I see this, because I don't think she is a threat at all. I don't agree with many of her policies...

I disagree on many fundamental points here, given her performances on the political talk shows of late her body language and verbal tics suggest she's rattled and uneasy in a hostile environment - given the enormity of what she's got to achieve with the EU, I don't believe that she's in any way the right person for the job. It's also obvious that party leadership know very well that she struggles in debates and with talking to "real" people, hence they're doing their best to shield her from ordinary members of the public.

Note the videos shared widely showing her being confronted in a rare walkabout by someone who has had their disability allowances cut - watch her body language carefully.

...but I still believe she is in politics because she wants to do what she believes to be right for Britain.

I'm sure that a great many politicians believe that they're doing the "right" thing, but they're invariably surrounded by a cadre of advisors who reportedly are reluctant to disagree with them. Truly, I don't claim to know what goes through TM's mind, but she's put party politics ahead of the national interest too many times.

Hillary, an amateur genealogical researcher, discovered that her great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows.

On the back of the picture is this inscription:

“Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”

In Hillary’s Family History, her staff of professional image consultants cropped Remus’s picture, scanned it, enlarged the image, and edited it with image processing software so that all that’s seen is a head shot.

The accompanying biographical sketch is as follows:

“Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

but I sort of feel bad for Mrs May when I see this

Don't. She is a threat and knows a thing or two about unpleasant poster campaigns herself.

Theresa May: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, [b]and I am not making this up[/b], he had a pet cat."

She was making it up. Which is why she deserves everything she gets.

globalti - that's got to be an urban myth!
Edit: Indeed it is - http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/horsethief.asp

I think we've [b]sleepwalked[/b] into the American style of attack adds and big money donors buying the vote

I sort of agree with @kimbers with the only caveat being the move has been very deliberate by the parties, more of a charge than a sleepwalk. On the recent issue of the Tory attack-ads on YouTube it has transpired that Labour has 1,200 (yes one thousand two hundred) different targeted social model ads. Tories didn;t say but you'd assume it was similar.

Personally I ignore the debates having watched similar in the US 30 years ago, the format is worthless imo. The attack style ads are only going to get worse 😐

She was making it up. Which is why she deserves everything she gets.

No she wasn't - Alan Clarke asked for evidence and it was shown an (Italian?) had claimed having a cat was part of his right to a family life. (note part of - it wasn't the sole reason but his lawyer put that forward at his hearing)

No she wasn't - Alan Clarke asked for evidence and it was shown an (Italian?) had claimed having a cat was part of his right to a family life. (note part of - it wasn't the sole reason but his lawyer put that forward at his hearing)

😆

[quote=SaxonRider ]I know it is everywhere, but I sort of feel bad for Mrs May when I see this, because I don't think she is a threat at all. I don't agree with many of her policies, but I still believe she is in politics because she wants to do what she believes to be right for Britain.

Don't feel bad for her - as others have pointed out she and her party are quite happy to do the same, arguably with less justification given the huge negative consequences for our country and Europe as a whole as a result of their policies (IMHO, but I'd be extremely surprised to be proved wrong). If we can do the playground thing, they started it.

Meanwhile do you really believe that? All available evidence suggests that whatever principles she might have started with have been abandoned in favour of doing what is right for Mrs T May.

[quote=PJM1974 ]Truly, I don't claim to know what goes through TM's mind, but she's put party politics ahead of the national interest too many times.

You credit her with more interest in the welfare of her political party than appears likely.

I really struggling to understand how a supposedly smart guy could fail to see how much of a threat May is to this country, given her shambolic approach to Brexit and the awful manifesto she's just announced (and then done a U-turn on).

No she wasn't - Alan Clarke asked for evidence and it was shown an (Italian?) had claimed having a cat was part of his right to a family life. (note part of - it wasn't the sole reason but his lawyer put that forward at his hearing)

#jambafacts

For everyone else: the man is Bolivian and the judiciary confirmed that Theresa May was making it up.

her shambolic approach to Brexit and the awful manifesto she's just announced

As I said, I have very little truck with her party's policies; it is only when she is cast as being personally threatening that I get concerned. As I would be for anyone cast in similar terms, when what I assume they want is to serve their country. None of us has to agree what the best way to serve the country is; but if you said something I didn't agree with, it would be silly - and possibly downright nasty - of me to say that you were 'threatening'.

It's just a type of public shorthand I don't like.

As I said, I have very little truck with her party's policies; it is only when she is cast as being personally threatening that I get concerned.

I would agree if she wasn't in charge of a party so consistently engaged in personal abuse.

None of us has to agree what the best way to serve the country is; but if you said something I didn't agree with, it would be silly - and possibly downright nasty - of me to say that you were 'threatening'.

[quote=SaxonRider ]As I said, I have very little truck with her party's policies; it is only when she is cast as being personally threatening that I get concerned.

But how exactly do you separate the threat due to the policies from the threat due to the party from the threat due to the leader of that party?

Is Daesh a threat to our country, is it the members of Daesh prepared to commit atrocities who are a threat, or is it simply the bombs?

If I stood for office my first policy would be to not take part in emotional attacks - just contrasting policies. I'd lose of course on the strength of that alone as you miss off the demographic of people who don't 'do' evidence based thinking.

I believe that was Corbyn's take when he went for the Labour leadership. I don't agree with all he's said and done, but I tip my hat to his incredible resilience. What's good is the feeling I'm getting is people seem to genuinely appreciate it, certainly comparing recent speech/rally footage between his and other politicians.

Is it enough to win an election tho? We'll find out shortly, but the strength and volume of the[i] demographic of people who don't 'do' evidence based thinking[/i] shouldn't be underestimated.

She's definitely a threat to the hundreds of thousands of disabled people who regularly get judged to be fit to work, or those who are recalled for assessments on the off-chance that missing limbs have grown back.

I would argue that her inability to negotiate renders her a bloody liability in any negotiations with our EU partners.

She's definitely a threat to the hundreds of thousands of disabled people who regularly get judged to be fit to work, or those who are recalled for assessments on the off-chance that missing limbs have grown back.

And you ask a Tory and you'll get the line that Labour are a threat to everyone because they'll trash the economy.

The SNP campaign on the basis that they are anti-Tory. The Conservatives campaign on the basis they are anti-SNP. Everyone campaigns on the basis that they are better than Labour.

"They are worse than we are" isn't exactly the sort of message that energises people. But modern politics seems to have degraded into soundbites and nonsense statements (build a wall, 350m for the NHS, etc, etc) rather than any intellectual discourse.

Of course, politicians only come out with what they see having an effect on the electorate. If we didn't collectively respond to this crap then they wouldn't build their campaigns on it.

Labour are a threat to everyone because they'll trash the economy.

Show me the evidence.

Blair Brown oversaw 14 years of economic growth until a global crisis financial hit. Darling and Brown set us well on the road to recovery until Osborne trashed the economy